tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 15 19:12:18 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Complex Sentences
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Complex Sentences
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:13 EST
In a message dated 2/12/1999 10:25:35 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< (1) For verbs with an inherent locative concept, {-Daq} may or may not be
> added to the OBJECT noun, which is the destination.
>
> (2) When {-Daq} is used on an OBLIQUE noun in a sentence with a verb with
an
> inherent locative concept, it means that the action of the verb takes place
> AT that noun. The noun is not the destination of the action. >>
Canon Call:
I need to know which verbs take {-Daq} for sure and which ones may not take
{-Daq}. I would think that {qet} and {chegh} do not need to take {-Daq} when
referring to a destination. Yet, I have seen discussion regarding {paw}
claiming that one actually "arrives" AT the location, thus requiring the
locative construction.
This disambiguates {juHDaq qet loD} from charghwI' and {juH qet loD} from
peHruS.
It is true: I have never liked using {-Daq} for "to [someplace]." I have
always felt it works for "at."
peHruS